How about another Mandate? (A solutions thread)

[Shusha]

You are claiming "rights" that nobody else has.

Which rights am I claiming that nobody else has? Be specific.

 

[Hollie]

They don't need a sovereign independent nation ....

Yep. That's what I thought you would say. If you scratch the skin of every single anti-Israel poster, it will eventually come down to: the Jewish people don't have the same rights as other peoples.

NOONE ON EARTH HAS THE RIGHT TO THIEVE AND MURDER!

You are insane.

The Nakba began in 1947 and still goes on to this day - THAT'S THIEVING AND MURDERING.

The Jewish Exile began in 586 BCE. What's your point?

Based on what besides total horseshit?

Except Arabs-Moslems, of course. The entire history of muhamnedan'ism is one of murder and thievery.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are claiming "rights" that nobody else has.

Which rights am I claiming that nobody else has? Be specific.

That one segment of a national group can claim superior rights over the other parts of the population.

 

[Humanity]

I will quickly deal with the reason why I feel international rather than Israeli forces should intervene in any belligerent attacks from Gaza...

You are looking at this from a very pro Israeli stand point... And not really seeing that IF Israel were outside of any conflict resulting from belligerent attacks from Gaza it would be project a far more sympathetic view of Israel...

Sure, Israel has a right to protect herself... That is a given but, just look at history, Israel receives one hell of a bag full of condemnation for it...

I am suggesting an international force so that Israel does not receive that condemnation and COULD actually receive some 'love' from the rest of the world!

Yes, I think I understand where you are coming from on this. Here's my problem:

You seem to be apparently admitting there would be no practical differences between a military engagement by an international force and one by Israel. (Indeed, it appears you advocate a MUCH harsher stance against Hamas than many here. I'm a little surprised). The purpose of the international force is strictly to take the heat of Israel. I understand that. And I understand all the reasons for it.

BUT, its problematic, morally, for me, because at its core it supports the idea that Israel, alone, should not be permitted to defend its own nation and citizens. It supports the idea of a double standard for Israel. It supports the idea that Israel is somehow incapable of conducting itself with restraint and humanity. And I think that perception is damaging to Israel (and the Jewish people).

If the international community removes the right of self-defense from Israel, its sending the message that Israel doesn't warrant the same rights as everyone else.

There is one BIG practical difference.... I would want an international force on the ground... Not indiscriminately bombing Gaza... Yes, of course Israel COULD do the same but it would NOT be welcomed by the rest of the world!

I'm not sure why you are surprised at my 'dislike' of Hamas... I have stated that many times before and would be much happier if they would simply disappear from the face of the planet!!

I don't see it as "double standard" and would certainly not be a unique situation where an international force has acted on behalf of another country...

"incapable of conducting itself with restraint and humanity"... Isn't that already a perception that is damaging to Israel? By removing the 'perception' then it can only be a good thing for Israel...

Oh and your last point... I am absolutely NOT suggesting to remove the right of Israel to defend herself... Far from it... However, I am sure you can see that Gaza and Palestine are special cases and should be dealt with as such... Sure, if, for example, Syria wants a piece of Israel, got get 'em...

 

[Hollie]

You are claiming "rights" that nobody else has.

Which rights am I claiming that nobody else has? Be specific.

That one segment of a national group can claim superior rights over the other parts of the population.

Google the terrms 'islam" and "dhimmitude".

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are claiming "rights" that nobody else has.

Which rights am I claiming that nobody else has? Be specific.

That one segment of a national group can claim superior rights over the other parts of the population.

Google the terrms 'islam" and "dhimmitude".

Off topic.

 

[Hollie]

You are claiming "rights" that nobody else has.

Which rights am I claiming that nobody else has? Be specific.

That one segment of a national group can claim superior rights over the other parts of the population.

Google the terrms 'islam" and "dhimmitude".

Off topic.

Deflection.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are claiming "rights" that nobody else has.

Which rights am I claiming that nobody else has? Be specific.

That one segment of a national group can claim superior rights over the other parts of the population.

Google the terrms 'islam" and "dhimmitude".

Off topic.

Deflection.

You are deflecting by going off topic.

 

[Hollie]

Which rights am I claiming that nobody else has? Be specific.

That one segment of a national group can claim superior rights over the other parts of the population.

Google the terrms 'islam" and "dhimmitude".

Off topic.

Deflection.

You are deflecting by going off topic.

You are deflecting by denying the historical connection of Moslems and the imposition of dhimmitude.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That one segment of a national group can claim superior rights over the other parts of the population.

Google the terrms 'islam" and "dhimmitude".

Off topic.

Deflection.

You are deflecting by going off topic.

You are deflecting by denying the historical connection of Moslems and the imposition of dhimmitude.

There hasn't been dhimmitude for over a hundred years.

So, what are you blabbering about?

 

[Shusha]

That one segment of a national group can claim superior rights over the other parts of the population.

Never have I ever claimed superior rights for either group. Same rights. Always.

 

[Shusha]

I'm not sure why you are surprised at my 'dislike' of Hamas... I have stated that many times before and would be much happier if they would simply disappear from the face of the planet!!

Oh, I'm not at all surprised by your dislike of Hamas. I'm surprised you would suggest solving the problem of Hamas with an invasive ground war and ousting them. That is FAR more heavy handed than anything Israel has done. I didn't think of you as being someone willing to go to that sort of military extreme.

 

[montelatici]

Israel helped create Hamas, why would they want to destroy it.

"The Israelis saw Qutb's adherents in the Palestinian territories, including the wheelchair-bound Sheik Ahmed Yassin, as a useful counterweight to Arafat's PLO."

How Israel helped create Hamas

 

[Shusha]

There is one BIG practical difference.... I would want an international force on the ground... Not indiscriminately bombing Gaza... Yes, of course Israel COULD do the same but it would NOT be welcomed by the rest of the world!

Well, I'd argue that aerial bombardment is not indiscriminate. It is prone to error and collateral damage, but that is not the same thing. It may seem to be a minor difference, but it is actually important when considering the perception of Israel in the international community.

And I'd have no problem whatsoever if you argue that aerial bombardment should be made illegal.

But if a ground operation to remove Hamas is the right thing to do, why wouldn't it be the right thing to do with Israel involved? I agree it would not be welcomed by the rest of the world. But I think the reason that it would not be welcomed by the rest of the world is because the rest of the world has spent so much time demonizing Israel, they have a hard time seeing her as anything but.

By your own admission, its a perception problem and not an objective problem.

The way to correct that problem is to support Israel.

 

[Shusha]

However, I am sure you can see that Gaza and Palestine are special cases and should be dealt with as such... Sure, if, for example, Syria wants a piece of Israel, got get 'em...

I see what you mean here. I think you could make a good case for the West Bank: the border is fluid and permeable, the sovereignty is not contiguous, there are Palestinian citizens on Israeli-controlled land, Palestinians entering Israel every day for work, etc. Its complicated.

But I don't think you can make that case for Gaza. There is a clearly defined border, not in dispute. There is a contiguous area of sovereignty. There is an effective government (being a terrorist organization doesn't mean you aren't effective in your governmental control). There are only Gazan citizens to consider.

Gaza has sovereignty, in all but the formal sense, in her own territory. So, there is nothing special about her. She is a sovereign entity attacking another sovereign's territory. Clear cut case. AS clear as if Syria or Jordan or Lebanon started lobbing rockets over to Israel.

 

[Shusha]

There hasn't been dhimmitude for over a hundred years.

So, what are you blabbering about?

This probably is deflection (sorry mods), but while the Ottomans found it prudent to formally eliminate dhimmitude, it has been re-introduced in practice into those territories in all places where there remains some small remnant who can be identified as dhimmi.

 

[Shusha]

Israel helped create Hamas, why would they want to destroy it.

Aside from all the normal humanitarian reasons of helping the Gazan people, I imagine its because having on your border a terrorist-led government intent on destroying you is somewhat problematic.

 

[Humanity]

I'm not sure why you are surprised at my 'dislike' of Hamas... I have stated that many times before and would be much happier if they would simply disappear from the face of the planet!!

Oh, I'm not at all surprised by your dislike of Hamas. I'm surprised you would suggest solving the problem of Hamas with an invasive ground war and ousting them. That is FAR more heavy handed than anything Israel has done. I didn't think of you as being someone willing to go to that sort of military extreme.

I'm not sure that I am suggesting an "invasion", though I would have NO issue in a military force removing a terrorist organisation! And I don't even see it as "military extreme"... Its a terrorist organisation... There IS no "extreme" in dealing with terrorists!

 

[louie888]

I'm not sure why you are surprised at my 'dislike' of Hamas... I have stated that many times before and would be much happier if they would simply disappear from the face of the planet!!

Oh, I'm not at all surprised by your dislike of Hamas. I'm surprised you would suggest solving the problem of Hamas with an invasive ground war and ousting them. That is FAR more heavy handed than anything Israel has done. I didn't think of you as being someone willing to go to that sort of military extreme.

I'm not sure that I am suggesting an "invasion", though I would have NO issue in a military force removing a terrorist organisation! And I don't even see it as "military extreme"... Its a terrorist organisation... There IS no "extreme" in dealing with terrorists!

So, you would agree with using force on the likud terrorists as well?

 

[Humanity]

There is one BIG practical difference.... I would want an international force on the ground... Not indiscriminately bombing Gaza... Yes, of course Israel COULD do the same but it would NOT be welcomed by the rest of the world!

Well, I'd argue that aerial bombardment is not indiscriminate. It is prone to error and collateral damage, but that is not the same thing. It may seem to be a minor difference, but it is actually important when considering the perception of Israel in the international community.

And I'd have no problem whatsoever if you argue that aerial bombardment should be made illegal.

But if a ground operation to remove Hamas is the right thing to do, why wouldn't it be the right thing to do with Israel involved? I agree it would not be welcomed by the rest of the world. But I think the reason that it would not be welcomed by the rest of the world is because the rest of the world has spent so much time demonizing Israel, they have a hard time seeing her as anything but.

By your own admission, its a perception problem and not an objective problem.

The way to correct that problem is to support Israel.

I could, but won't explain again why I don't believe it right for, that's FOR Israel to carry out operations, ground or air, against Gaza...

If you are happy for worldwide condemnation of Israel AND Jews then go for it...

"error and collateral damage" are just semantics, sorry...

You think the allied forces in WWII were right in aerial bombardment of Germany? There is a case for and against, however, "error and collateral damage" is just political speak for civilian casualties!